18‐805 Carcamo Estrada v. Barr BIA Kolbe, IJ A206 316 916 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANGEL ERNESTO CARCAMO ESTRADA, AKA ALEXIS VALLADARES RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. 18‐805 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Esq., White Plains, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Petitioner Angel Ernesto Carcamo Estrada, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a February 20, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a September 12, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Carcamo Estrada, No. A 206 316 916 (B.I.A. Feb. 20, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 316 916 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 12, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2 2013). Withholding of Removal In order to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal, an “applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C‐ T‐L‐, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010). The agency did not err in concluding that Carcamo Estrada’s religious or political belief in opposition to selling drugs was not “one central reason” that he was targeted by gangs. Carcamo Estrada’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals